--On Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:46 -0500 Russ Housley
<hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>...
> I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another
> encumbered codec. I think these words are trying to say what
> you want, but they are also trying to be realistic.
>
> Does the following text strike a better balance?
>
> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group
> shall
> follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The
> working
> group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
> encumbered technologies; however, the working group will
> try to
> avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties.
Yes. Considerable improvement, IMO. Out of deference to
often-stated other concerns, "require royalities" should be
something like "require royalties or explicit per-implementation
or per-user licensing", but I think that is in the spirit of
where you are going.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
